8
   

Is the world being destroyed?

 
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2021 07:02 am
There are two sides to this. One is psychological and one is scientific.

On the psychological side, there is something human about predicting the end of the world. In 2400 BC, there is an Assyrian tablet exclaiming that human behavior is unsustainable and that humanity would be wiped out.

The Ancient Greeks, the Romans, the Catholic Church, the Protestant Church, the Muslim Caliphate.

In 1810 the Halleys comet was going to poison the atmosphere wiping out human life. In 2000 the Y2K bug was going to destroy civilization (people were literally buying guns, water and preparing to live in bunkers).

This isn't new. Humanity has ALWAYS been at the brink of destruction, and I suppose we always will be.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2021 07:10 am
@maxdancona,
Now for the science....

1) In middle school science we are all taught that "matter can neither be created nor destroyed". This NNR nonsense is simply bullshit. When we use Iron, or Phosphorus, or Nitrogen or any other element... it doesn't disappear. There are roughly the same number of Phosphorus atoms on earth now that there were 30,000 years ago. There are some compounds (i.e. fossil fuels) that can only be used once easily... but the elements are still there.

2) There are self-limiting species. There are many species that are not self-limiting. Species evolve, but many have survived in something like their present state for millions of years.

3) Humans are one of those species. We have proven our ability to last tens of thousands of years.

4) There is one limiting resource for humans... that is the Sun. Where as I can reuse iron, or oxygen. The problem of NNR (if there is one) is that it takes energy to form compounds. Once we run out of energy, we will no longer be able to use the atoms we have on Earth.

In 10 billion years or so when we no longer have abundant energy from our Sun, Hightor will be right and humanity will be doomed.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2021 07:20 am
@maxdancona,
Now for the politics.

Hightor's pseudo-scientific message of righteousness and doom is nonsense. This is another mad prophet in the wilderness telling us our sinful ways will lead to damnation.

There is a reasonable point to make about conservation. Humanity is more in control of the planet than ever. We are in the process of stopping a global pandemic with a vaccine... we now control viruses. You can minimize this if you want... but far more people died in previous pandemics (think Spanish Flu or Black death). What we are doing now is magic.

We should be thinking about the impacts of our actions. We have a unique ability to provide food security for the world... and we should. We also now can measure environmental impacts, and climate. We have greater power than we ever had, and greater responsibility.

And of course humans are now having drastic impact on the environment. Climate change is real. The impacts of fertilizer on marine ecosystems is real. These are real problems. We should be addressing them. We are not the only species to damage our own environment. We are the only species with the ability to understand what we are doing and take action to prevent it

Here is the point.

A responsible, reasoned, science based view of conservation is good.
A ridiculous "humanity is doomed" doctrine of human failing is a different thing altogether.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2021 07:26 am
Gallileo discovered that the Earth revolves around the Sun. When that upset the powers that be, (the Pope,) Gallileo recanted and said the opposite.

That’s what scientists do, when the science does not match the expected results of the people paying for it the scientists brush it under the carpet.

It’s not science that’s the problem, it’s the unethical behaviour of scientists who take money from big business. It’s the corrupt way big business uses science to muddy the water and stop progress, and it’s the criminal behaviour of its supporters who would have us believe Gallileo when he said the Sun revolves around the Earth.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2021 07:38 am
@izzythepush,
Science is either trustworthy or it isn't trustworthy. You can't have it both ways.

Scientists tell you that the climate is changing, that temperatures are going up and that human activity is the primary cause.

If we want people to take this seriously, than we need to know that we can trust scientists to give us the true scientific findings. If you are arguing that scientists are corruptable, than anything they say can be questioned.

You will notice that people on both the political left and the political right use the same argument to ignore scientific findings that they don't like.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2021 08:06 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
In 2400 BC, there is an Assyrian tablet exclaiming that human behavior is unsustainable and that humanity would be wiped out.

Do you have a link to that? Of course, those sorts of predictions were more believable then. Whole tribes and nations were destroyed by conquest, disease, drought, and other natural disasters. And the "End is Near" has been a feature of many religious teachings. But so have utopian predictions of universal salvation and a world of peace. The psychology of one is follow god's commands or we perish and the other one is follow god's commands and achieve heaven on earth. I don't think predicting the end of the world or a better one in the future is as odd as you think it is. Both myths are based on the need of a practical way of getting people to do something — either motivate them by fear of destruction or the promise of paradise. Nothing "scientific" about it.

And that makes it different from science-based predictions which refer to physical data as evidence. By conflating the two types of predictions, defenders of the status quo can prevent people from taking action without disproving or even acknowledging any evidence but simply by dismissing the predictions as the delusions of worry-warts or, as Trump did with global warming, suggesting it was made up by China specifically to hobble our industrial production.

The science which underlays the warming of the atmosphere was developed in the 19th Century and by 1912, you see an article like this in a newspaper:
https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODY5Mzg3Mi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY3MTE0NDc5Nn0.vCNu_eYI_jWKInAquJ4FnYs3-VwAQqSs1sC7wx6RcuE/img.jpg?width=1245&quality=85&coordinates=0%2C0%2C0%2C0&height=700
Luckily for the Koch Bros, no one thought it was worth doing anything about at the time. A Popular Mechanics article about the subject the year before concludes:
Quote:
It is perhaps somewhat hazardous to make conjectures for centuries yet to come, but in the light of all that is known it is reasonable to conclude that not only has the brain of man contrived machines by means of which he can travel faster than the wind, navigate the ocean depths, fly above the clouds, and do the work of a hundred, but also indirectly by these very things, which change the constitution of the atmosphere, have his activities reached beyond the near at hand and the immediate present and modified the cosmic processes themselves.

It is largely the courageous, enterprising, and ingenious American whose brains are changing the world. Yet even the dull foreigner, who burrows in the earth by the faint gleam of his miner's lamp, not only supports his family and helps to feed the consuming furnaces of modern industry, but by his toil in the dirt and darkness adds to the carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere so that men in generations to come shall enjoy milder breezes and live under sunnier skies.

The extraction of NNRs and the problems future shortages hold for the world economy doesn't provide the dramatic story line that warming does. For one thing, it's easy – if sometimes inaccurate – to lay the blame for specific hurricanes and tornadoes on climate change, even though we've always suffered from storms. We see the damage before our eyes and it's terrifying. Having to pay more for commodities because it costs industry more to mine dwindling supplies of crucial NNRs doesn't have quite the same sense of peril. But if what Clugston says is true, it will emerge into general consciousness at some time and eventually affect us on many levels. If previous history is any guide, it'll likely be too late to do anything about it.

hightor
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2021 08:14 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
Hightor's pseudo-scientific message of righteousness and doom is nonsense. This is another mad prophet in the wilderness telling us our sinful ways will lead to damnation.

Um, get a grip. I'm not making a message of "righteousness and doom". I have said nothing about "sin". Nor is Clugston's book "pseudo-scientific".

Quote:
In middle school science we are all taught that "matter can neither be created nor destroyed". This NNR nonsense is simply bullshit. When we use Iron, or Phosphorus, or Nitrogen or any other element... it doesn't disappear. There are roughly the same number of Phosphorus atoms on earth now that there were 30,000 years ago. There are some compounds (i.e. fossil fuels) that can only be used once easily... but the elements are still there.

As I've said before, the elements may still exist, but not in a form which can be readily extracted or processed, leading to increased costs. Phosphates on the ocean floor will coast more to extract that those mined in an open pit.

maxdancona, climb out of your bubble. Read the f-ing book before you call it "pseudo-science".
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2021 08:19 am
@hightor,
Climate science is real science. Climate change has been accepted by the scientific community and there are statements from every reputable scientific institution. There is peer-reviewed research that is well accepted and there is an accepted set of models and terminology.

Your NNR nonsense is psuedo-science. It is promoted on the internet and used to sell books.

You have stated that Phosphorus is an NNR. Let me give you three other elements.

Iron
Nitrogen
Oxygen

Which of these are NNRs?
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2021 09:17 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
Which of these are NNRs?

Elementally, none of them.

Iron is one of the most abundant elements on, and within, the planet. In the form of commercially extractable iron ore, it is nonrenewable. Melting down old car engines or tapping magma from the earth's core won't be as economical as scooping high-grade ore out of a pit.

Nitrogen is abundant in the atmosphere and in spaces between soil particles but fixed nitrogen sources are non-renewable. Nitrogen for fertilizers, if not fixed through the action of legumes, must be industrially produced from fossil fuel sources.


...You know, it strikes me that if I hadn't resurrected this old thread with the dumb title (which I did not write) you might not be as hostile to the case that Clugston lays out. I'm not going to copy every chart and table from his book to satisfy your curiosity and suggest you read the book yourself and take up your problems with the author instead of trying to pain me as a some sort of Old Testament figure warning god's children of impending doom.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2021 09:28 am
@maxdancona,
where does the term nnr come from.? nothing is non renewable unless its undergoing fission. Im not sure I understand where youre going.

Li is reclaimable. it doesnt change itcan be easily recycled like scrap metal is used to make mild steel as well as
all kinds of stainless
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2021 09:48 am
@farmerman,
Farmerman, I don't think you are following the converstion. NNR is not my term,

NNR stands for Nonrenewable Natural Resource. It is a pseudo-science term coined to push a rather extreme left-wing conservationist message.

The ideology behind it is that society is about to collapse because humans are using too much Phosphorus. This ideology is being pushed by Clugston. Clugston wrote some rather alarmist books that Hightor seems to be quite enamored with. There is no evidence that Clugston has any scientific expertise. He does make lots of graphs that hightor seems to like.

NNR is not a scientific term. It is a ideological term of dubious meaning. I am only using it because it was brought up in the context is this silly argument.


Farmerman: You have relevant scientific (geological) expertise. I would love to hear your opinion on this.

Are you worried about humanity reaching "peak phosphorus" in the next say 8 years... and seeing a collopse of society as a result? That is the claim that is being made.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2021 10:16 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
It is a pseudo-science term coined to push a rather extreme left-wing conservationist message.
Well, at least here (and in a couple other European countries), it's taught at universities (within the e.g. departments of Environmental and Resource Economics and/or Environmental Ethics) without any left or right message.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2021 10:21 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Can you provide a link that isn't from a explicitly political organization. If legitimate academic institutions are using this term I would love to know how it is defined.

If phosphorus is defined as an nnr, and phosphorus is a fairly common element on the surface of the Earth, I would love to know how other elements such as sulfur or copper are defined in this spectrum.

I would be honestly interested to see if you can find a link that uses this term in a way that isn't overtly pushing a political ideology.

I looked. I couldn't find one.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2021 10:25 am
@maxdancona,
Well, if you consider e.g. the Technical University Bergakademie of Freiberg in Saxony/Germany, the oldest mining science and energy university in the world, or any of our other universities to be explicitly political organisation because they are "state universities" - I can't.

Edit: but I can tell that the term was already widely used more than 20 years ago: in 2000, Endres, Alfred; Querner, Immo wrote the standard work Die Ökonomie natürlicher Ressourcen ("The economics of natural resources")
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2021 10:32 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Can you provide a link to where they use this term (or the equivalent term in German)?
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2021 10:35 am
@Walter Hinteler,
And Walter, I know you are just jumping into this on the side of your political friend. But let me ask the question directly.

Do you believe that human civilization is doomed to collapse in a couple of generations because of phosphorus? That is the dubious claim that is being argued here.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2021 10:38 am
@maxdancona,
Didn't notice your question when editing my above response.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2021 10:41 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
And Walter, I know you are just jumping into this on the side of your political friend.
Since you know more than I do about me, you'll certainly will know, too, that I'll make a pause responding to you now after such an insinuation made out of the blue.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2021 10:43 am
@Walter Hinteler,
I accept that.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2021 11:26 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
where does the term nnr come from.?

Here, farmerman — this is from the short article that introduced me to this concept, which I first read six years ago. His book on the subject didn't come out until 2019. As you can see, the term NNR doesn't mean the elements and molecules cease to exist, despite maxdancona's obstinate insistence that there's some sort of Old Testament-alchemical-commie agenda behind Clugston's observations.

Quote:
Nonrenewable Natural Resources—The Enablers

Our modern industrialized existence is enabled almost exclusively by enormous and ever-increasing quantities of nonrenewable natural resources (NNRs)1—the finite and non-replenishing fossil fuels, metals, and nonmetallic minerals that serve as:

• the raw material inputs to our industrialized economies;

• the building blocks that comprise our industrialized infrastructure and support systems; and

• the primary energy sources that power our industrialized societies.

NNR Roles

NNRs play three essential roles in enabling our industrial lifestyle paradigm.

• NNRs enable renewable natural resources (RNRs)—air, water, soil, forests, and other naturally occurring biota—to be used in ways and at levels that are necessary to support the extraordinary population levels and material living standards associated with industrialized human societies. Examples include water storage/distribution systems, food production/distribution systems, and energy generation/distribution systems, which would support only a negligible fraction of today’s global human population in the absence of NNRs.

• NNRs enable the production and provisioning of infrastructure, goods, and energy that are inconceivable through the exclusive utilization of RNRs. Examples include cars, airplanes, computers, skyscrapers, highway systems, gasoline stations, communication networks, electric power grids, and nuclear power plants.

• NNRs enable the creation of enormous real wealth surpluses, which are necessary to support the thriving middle-class population segments that differentiate industrialized societies from pre-industrial, RNR-based, agrarian, and hunter-gatherer societies.

Within the context of our industrial lifestyle paradigm, human prosperity2—defined by economic output and material living standards—is enabled by NNRs.

NNRs → Human Prosperity
(Economic Output and Material Living Standards
)

Examples of the critical role played by NNRs in enabling human prosperity:

• NNRs comprise approximately 95 percent of the raw material inputs to the United States economy each year.3 • During 2006, America used over 7.1 billion tons of newly mined NNRs, which equated to nearly 48,000 pounds per U.S. citizen.4

The tightly-linked causal relationship between NNR utilization and economic output (GDP) is clearly demonstrated by America’s experience since the inception of its industrial revolution.

https://centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/images/35-4-clugston-figure-1.png

NNR Supplies

Despite recycling, reuse, conservation, substitution, efficiency improvements, productivity enhancements, and technical innovation, global NNR production (newly mined extraction) has increased extraordinarily during our modern industrial era.

As the following data demonstrate, annual global NNR production levels associated with the most critical NNRs have increased enormously in just the past generation (thirty years).

https://centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/images/35-4-clugston-table-1.png

Moreover, we believe without question that annual global NNR production levels will continue to increase as required for the indefinite future.

We have yet to understand that while there will always be plenty of NNRs in the ground (we will never “run out” of any NNR), and over the near term there will likely be more NNRs of nearly every type supplied each year, in an increasing number of cases there are not enough economically viable NNRs to completely address our global requirements—i.e., to increase global prosperity at a rate that we consider “acceptable.”9

Global NNR scarcity is becoming increasingly prevalent.

NNR Scarcity: Shifting Global Demand/Supply Dynamics

Humanity’s incessant quest for universal “Western style” prosperity through global industrialization caused fundamental shifts in global NNR demand/supply dynamics during the latter decades of the twentieth century.

• On the “demand side,” approximately one billion people occupied industrialized and industrializing nations during the mid/late twentieth century.10 By the year 2000, as a consequence of the industrialization initiatives launched by China, India, Brazil, and other emerging nations in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, that number had increased to over five billion.

As a result, global NNR requirements increased nearly instantaneously and extraordinarily during the early years of the new millennium. More important, early twenty-first century NNR utilization levels within the newly industrializing nations represented only tiny fractions of their longer-term requirements.

• On the “supply side,” owing to persistent and increasing exploitation11 since the beginning of our industrial revolution, the quality associated with the vast majority of NNRs has been decreasing—i.e., global NNR discoveries and deposits are generally fewer in number, smaller in size, less accessible, and of lower grade and purity.12 Increasingly, the cost advantages derived from new NNR exploration, extraction, and processing technologies are failing to offset the cost disadvantages attributable to exploiting Earth’s lower-quality NNR deposits. The result is diminishing returns on NNR-related investments—that is, each incremental dollar invested in NNR exploitation yields smaller quantities of economically viable NNRs.13

Global NNR supplies, which had generally remained sufficiently “low cost” during the mid/late twentieth century to enable relatively low price levels, became increasingly “high cost” during the early years of the twenty-first century.

Owing to rapidly increasing global NNR demand during this period, we were forced to exploit lower quality NNRs. Unfortunately, human ingenuity—i.e., technology, resourcefulness, innovation, efficiency improvements, and productivity enhancements—could not constrain the escalating costs associated with exploiting these lower quality NNRs.

Epidemic Global NNR Scarcity

By the year 2008, immediately prior to the Great Recession, costs (and prices) associated with most NNRs had increased to levels that were unprecedented during our modern industrial age. Global NNR scarcity had become epidemic.14 In fact, sixty-three of the eighty-nine NNRs that enable our modern industrialized existence—including aluminum, chromium, coal, copper, gypsum, iron/steel, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, natural gas, oil, phosphate rock, potash, rare-earth minerals, titanium, tungsten, uranium, vanadium, and zinc—were scarce globally in 2008.15

Fueled by incessant central government fiscal stimulus (unrepayable debt) and central bank monetary stimulus (money printing and interest-rate suppression) since the Great Recession, the industrialized and industrializing nations of the world have attempted to recover economically and restore prerecession prosperity.

Despite this historically unprecedented economic “pump priming,” however, repeated postrecession recovery attempts have failed, as global NNR demand was throttled in each case by increasing and/or inordinately high NNR prices. Global NNR scarcity and economic malaise have persisted through 2014.16

And while it remains unclear at this time whether our current episode of global NNR scarcity will prove to be temporary or permanent, it is clear that our early twenty-first–century experience with NNR scarcity is a precursor of things to come.

What Happened?

During our modern industrial era but increasingly over the past several decades, continuously decreasing NNR quality has prevailed over human ingenuity.17 That is, significant cost increases associated with NNRs of continuously decreasing quality have overwhelmed human technology, resourcefulness, innovation, efficiency improvements, and productivity enhancements.

Our enormous and ever-increasing global NNR requirements within the context of lower quality/higher cost (less affordable) global NNR supplies have brought about increasingly prevalent NNR scarcity, which has caused faltering global prosperity.

Increasing NNR Scarcity → Faltering Prosperity


In less than half a century, global humanity has experienced a transition from robustly increasing prosperity to anemically increasing prosperity.18 We are “rolling over” from our old normal of “continuously more and more” to our new normal of “continuously less and less".

https://centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/images/35-4-clugston-figure-2.png

Humanity’s fate was sealed during the eighteenth century with the advent of industrialism; the NNR genie had been released from the bottle and could not be put back. We remained oblivious to our fate throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by misconstruing our windfall of temporary NNR abundance as permanent NNR sufficiency.

What Happens Next?

The probability that we will discover and extract sufficient high quality/low cost NNRs to reverse our faltering global prosperity trajectory is infinitesimal—given that we have failed to do so during the past fifty years despite unparalleled human ingenuity during that time, and given that our global NNR requirements remain enormous and are still increasing in almost all cases.

While temporary upticks in national and global prosperity growth rates are certainly possible during the near term, a return to persistently robust global economic growth and rapidly improving material living standards is nearly impossible.21

The episode of epidemic global NNR scarcity that we are experiencing during the twenty-first century is Nature’s wake-up call to the fact that our industrial lifestyle paradigm—the way of life that we in the industrialized West consider “normal”—is anything but normal. Our NNR–enabled industrialized existence is a onetime anomaly that is coming to an end.

(...)

(conclusions and footnotes)

source

 

Related Topics

Israel Proves the Desalination Era is Here - Discussion by Robert Gentel
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
What does water taste like? - Question by Fiona368
California and its greentard/water problems - Discussion by gungasnake
Water is dry. - Discussion by izzythepush
Let's talk about... - Question by tontoiam
Water - Question by Cyracuz
Evaporation of Water - Question by gollum
What is your favorite bottled water? - Discussion by tsarstepan
water - Question by cissylxf
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/21/2024 at 08:24:18