Quote (skyeye @ Nov 24 2011 03:01pm)
Well there are a few problems with what you claim, even though I agree with the idea of people growing atleast some of their own food.
Is energy self-sustainable if given the proper tools? Yes, to a point. If you use nuclear energy, there is enough for a large enough amount of time that if it were not affected by any other energy need it would be a non issue. Unfortunately the machines used to get the elements out of the ground, process them, transport them, and maintain them use petroleum. As much experience you have in the world I am sure you are well aware that relatively soon (15-20years) that the worlds oil wells will run dry.
What about solar power? Well to harness solar power directly via solar panels, it faces more problems than nuclear energy. Not only is the gather, manufacturing,and transporting a problem, there is the problem that solar panels eventually wear out. This is when it gets problematic. At the time being a solar panel setup+ batteries to run a 1,500 square foot house at current energy consumption standards would cost you around 30-35 thousand dollars. The batteries would need to be periodically replaced, as would the solar panels. So at that point there are two options, and neither would be particularly valid. You could recycle part of the panels (you would still have to mine more of the minerals for increasing demand due to population increase)
but doing that would use massive amount of energy when used to replace all of the solar panels in the world. Also , if you were using hydroponics you would need many more solar panels per house than the average, driving the initial cost up by at-least 40%, as-well as the replacement cost's up by the same amount. All in all, it would be a relatively short term small scale fix, that would not be sustainable indefinatly.
What about coal? Well I am not sure of global coal supplies, but as far as the mines in West Virginia and surrounding areas go, they will have enough for 40-50 more years factoring in exponential growth of coal consumption.
What about wind turbines? once again, small scale short term fix. There are not enough "windy" for lack of a better term, areas (in the US atleast) to power the entire country.Yes it can be used to power individual houses , and even small-medium sized cities in some areas. These are more renewable material wise than most of the other options, but they require alot of energy to produce them. Not to mention the affect on local wildlife, particularly birds.As population rises in areas where it could be applied, you need more and more energy, more and more wind turbines.
Hydro electric power? Well this is one that has its ups and downs. One decent sized electric dam can generate a large amount of electricity easily, and once it is in place the maintenance costs are comparatively low. Where wildlife conservation not a problem, these could help ease the strain on other resources for quite some time (they can last hundreds of years). However they come with their own problems. They are labor intensive to construct, they require a large amount of water behind them to be able to function well, they can be easily put out of commission by droughts, and once again cause problems with wildlife.
Not sure about natural gas but I doubt it is our savior.
As far as farming all the food people need in basements, I have to flat out say your a fool if you meant that litteraly. The most obvious reason is that most people do not have basements, but aside from that, it would require a much larger space to provide a consistent amount of food for one person, let alone a family of 3-5. How exactly are people who live in cities supposed to do this I wonder? Not to mention the fact that most people who do have the land to do this either A. already do this on a small scale and do not find it worth doing for the mass majority of their food, or b. do not have the ability to farm the large amounts of land that they own, with their free time.
No matter how much land people could have, in todays lifestyle, farming our own food is not an option for most people. If they spent most of their time growing their food, the economy would greatly diminish. What are you going to do when you need a Dr when your appendix ruptures, and hes tending to his tomatoes on his farm 75 miles away, and you have 30 mins to live without a surgury? Does he need to buy his food because his lifestyle does not allot him to grow his own ? If so then it is essentially the way the world is now.
I understand that you were supposedly in the Navy. Well you may have been, and if so I thank you for your service. Yes, you are my senior by a number of years. However neither of those facts change the problems with what you have stated. Yes we need to learn to manage food and energy more efficiently, but what is more important if our sole worry is energy and food consumption, is that we LOWER our global population. With lower populations less food and energy would be required, and we could go for much longer periods of time with the resources we have at our disposal. Energy companies and food companies need a new slogan "save power/food in the future by using our condoms"
Well thought argument. Thank you. I have a response for each of your concerns, but it would get pretty long winded, and open up more debatable topics. As far as the food in the basement thing, it was merely for emphasize, sarcastic perhaps. But you got the point. There are more energy sources than what you have listed. And I do agree with your statements on all of the energy sources you have listed. However, a properly design community using combinations of, and other energy sources you didn't mention, parabolic dishes , volcanic heat, tidal and even lunar power are areas that either already are developed, developing or being considered. But combined strategic usage of some or all of these sources would diminish greatly societies dependancies on current energy requirements.
As far as gather transporting etc, one of the main issues of the current trading system is that products are not intelligently created as far as geography is concerned. There is of course a problem with nations claiming their land is theirs and it doesn't belong to the earth as a whole, and that will be the first hurdle man needs to solver for. Once a collective ideology of creating consumables with the main concern being preservation of the specie, and the earth's resources, and not profit, things would drastically change. An example of piss poor use of resources: The nike shoe. They gather the material from various places, the ship the materials to various places to be built, mostly child slave labor countries (sweat shops). It then gets shipped AGAIN all over the world, and millions of people are involved with the gathering, building, transporting, marketing, stocking, inventory - the list goes on forever. So again, you start to solve for the way things are manufactured in the first place, for the sake of the specie and not profit, you design an intelligent method to get products and services to the people in way that is highly efficient to the geographical location.. well use your imagination how many resources would be saved.
Many people have questioned your rationale on people tending their own lives and not integrated into a social body. One of your concerns about the doctor and tomato is legitimate. However, I am positive you have not considered the MASS amount of human, technological, and energy resources that would now available , because they are not spent in the cyclical consumerism paradigm, and because intelligent robotics have replaced mundane labor. It would diminish the economy? Oh yes, in fact that's the whole point. All trading systems would be replaced with a better design to get goods and services. For example, not everyone needs a car, or a lawnmower for example. So, we design roadways and cities that people don't need individual cars or trucks, since these things sit idle for extended periods of time. You design a system to dial up a car. It's already being done in London I believe. You start to develop availability concepts like this, think of all the things you no longer need. Insurance and insurance companies are gone, so are all the things connected to it, like OIL, pens paper, legal persons, food and beverage perhaps, heating and cooling, building inspection, taxes, law after law after law. So what happens to all these displaced people? What happens to that doctor tending his tomatoes? When man manages man properly the amount of human resources available would be profound. Automated systems frees the mundane worker bee. And everything connected to it. Now with man free enough to achieve greater heights, with less stress and fear, and most of all debt, you would see man aspire to something that would seem like fiction. All the greatest contributors to man, did so out of the inquisitive nature, their obsession to do stuff better. And I'm quite sure that an intelligently design social structure would provide a medical system, that no longer requires profit, but has taken on the mindset that they don't want you sick. They absolutely do not want to see your face if at all possible, because there is no longer a reward gain. But how many people are in volunteers for humanitarian groups? How many folks do you think would volunteer, if they didn't have to work for 60 years, then get ready to die? The numbers of available human resources, and the freedom of those people , would aspire, quite possibly to the best medical environment man has ever known.
But none of this matters, unless you first accept that man allows a man to own more than he can ever use, and has normalized it. And that this concept is the root of ALL Social issues, period. When we conquer that, we can talk about the rest.
Thanks again for your reply, it was intelligent.
This post was edited by anonplanz on Nov 25 2011 08:40am