Overpopulation

Most of the chemicals used to increase out put of farms comes from oil.

The thing about oil is that for little energy invested in production you get alot of energy out, the other forms of energy without oil won't be able to support our current energy demands.

 

Why couldn't the chemicals be obtained from other sources?

The high output/input ratio of oil is no different than any other sufficiently advanced form of energy. The relatively low output/input ratio of things like solar energy and nuclear power just indicates that they haven't been sufficiently developed yet, not that there is some kind of low ceiling on their efficiency.

 

Damn. Where the hell do you people get your information? May I suggest a little free thought for yourself? Apparently they have you convinced oil is NEEDED to produce food? Umm, so what did mankind do when there was no oil? They probably didn't eat, huh?

Perhaps you should read a little on agroecological farming methods or permaculture.

Remember: Mother Nature was the best damn farmer there was for many, many years. You really think we are better at it than she is?

 

Your quotes are laughable, sir. Oil is one of the most INEFFICIENT energy means available. Do you realize that we manufacture big oil drills (lots of energy to manufacture), then we run these big huge drills to pump oil hundreds or thousands of feet from the ground (lots of energy to pump crude oil), then we separate oil into many products (again, lots of energy to process oil). After that we ship (which also takes oil and gas) the petroleum products around the world. Then, we burn those fossil fuels to create electricity. Oh, don't forget the amount of energy expended to BUILD those powerplants.

And this is more energy efficient than solar power, wind power, or biogas power? Please, show me your second law of thermodynamics calculation!

 

I ment the industrial farming needs oil for chemicals of course de-industrializing farming would remove the need for oil in farming and I agree de-industrializing the farms would be good yet the fact still remains without oil industrial farms as they are now won't be able to function

 

Okay, good to hear you acknowledge that the chemical intensive monoculture of the West is not the only or even the best way.

The truth is, with or without oil, the industrial farms will not be able to continue for long. The inefficiencies in water usage alone render them unsustainable.

I know it sounds cliche, but the "other options" available are not shown to you because they won't make someone a big bunch of money. This goes for many things in life.

 

When oil use first started it had a Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) of 30 to 1 which was insanely efficent. It is now about 5 to 1 and the alternatives can't be the efficent at that scale of energy use now, just think about the fact that pretty much every city stays lit up through out the night burning energy to keep office lights on when nobody is in (think how hard it would be to meet the energy demand when at night the solar power would be idle) and think of the gas people waste just sitting at red lights.

For alternatives to work consumption of energy would have to be brought under control.

 

Okay, I see where you are going with this. You are right, energy consumption on the GRAND scale WILL have to be reduced. Particularly the energy consumption of manufacturing processes.

On a smaller scale, however, there are VERY viable alternatives that wouldn't require much reduction in energy consumption.

The EROEI doesn't tell the whole story either. It certainly isn't a measure of efficiency. I'd also be interested in how the EROEI for solar power was determined? I suspect the cumulative energy output of the solar panel is not being properly accounted for.

 

Yet low energy solutions have a larger impact. If you could encourage bike use and can take most of the cars off the roads even if only on days with good weather, it would dramaticly drop energy consumption. If you can put most goods on rails instead of trucks you again dramaticly drop energy consumption and local farms again drops energy consumption. Then peak oil won't be as big of a problem and it becomes easier to moves to alternatives.

Yet there is no support for a low energy society from within the system.

 

bah i cant wait till we can move on to a different planet to thrive, but lets hope this one doesnt crap out till then.

 

Modern farming is often referred to as "the process of turning oil into food". Thanks to oil, we have increased yeilds greatly for less effort. Think of all the tractors/other machinery, fertilizers, and pesticides that make industrial farming a reality? Without such performace capabilities, we can't grow so much food and thus can't support so many people. So it's really a matter of population: without industrial (oil-run) farming, we are grossly overpopulated.

That, in my opinion, is what makes the peak oil possibility so dangerous, the possibility for global famine. Also the fact that our water and sewage systems are oil and gas dependant. To those of us in the city, a large power outage means no water pumps are working, meaning we have no water in our homes. Contaminated water kills. I know if the water was off for more than a few days, there'd probably be a lot of panic, perhaps riots in large cities. Given that a lot of cities' water infrastructure is outdated and near the end of it's lifespan, we could be in big trouble with that.

Of course that's a dim view of the situation, and it may not end up so bad, but it's something worth thinking about, as it is quite possible.

By the way, oil is still pretty efficient in it's energy return, and on top of that, it's very versatile, which can't be said for most other energy forms.

 

http://www.exitmundi.nl/exitmundi.htm

prepare for impact

 

I'm fully aware of this. My point was that it doesn't HAVE to (or even should) be this way. Input intensive monoculture is NOT a good thing, and don't let them convince you it is. There are many methods which have been proven to produce MORE with LESS chemical inputs.

 

Everyone here is missing the main point! While industrial farming techniques, modern medicine, etc. has allowed people to have and keep more children on average, we have to ask ourselves why do people want to have more children. The answer is simple: SOCIAL SECURITY. Seriously. People have kids for many reasons, but it is mostly for their own retirement in countries that lack welfare and social security systems. The chance that you will starve or die of a preventative disease when you have 6-7 children providing for you is far less than if you have 2, esp. in developing countries.

While there are other things to take into account, cultural stigma, democratic leverage by partisan groups, birth control, availability of food, and more, retirement is the big one!

 

I agree with nearly all of that. In Africa, having a large family is still seen as economically beneficial because the children will eventually provide for the parents. In Europe and America, children are often viewed as an impediment to happiness rather than a source of it, because of the generally high level of affluence.

 

Agreed, our method of farming is terrible, destroys biodiversity and the soil, leeches fertilizer into freshwater, salinifies the soil, and is more succeptible to disease/pests (thus the need for so many pesticides).

 

alright. well you know how people think it is so good if scientist think of ways to cure every illness and disease, well that would be bad. if no one died from sicknesses, and only old age, less people would be dying. they'd live longer, and more babies would be born than people dying. therefore the world will get overpolulated. but for now i think we are safe, and it would still be great to get some illnesses cured.

 

Holee fuck. does anyone remember Kandahar?
I just got angry, and this was from over a year ago!

Peace

 

Uhhh yes i remember Kandahar, his status is 'banned', dunno why, i enjoyed our heated exchanges and yet on some of his posts on other threads i found myself agreeing with him 100%. Hope they had good reason to ban him other than him having unpopular views.

 

That may sound logical, but actually it is ridiculous. Of course babies should be born far faster than people die off. It's getting time to do away with the ridiculously low population densities of the past, because so many more people would be glad to be living, and so many people, rather like having children. And because God has already been providing or allowing us various technologies to help people populate up denser and denser, as need be. And because human life is sacred, and so we ought not to be interfering with its creation. For humans to spread into more niches, and populate more densely and efficiently together, doesn't equal "overpopulation." In fact, one of the reason we are capable of populating so much more, is that there are still way too many niches, we haven't even begun to fill.