As a Ph.D. former research scientist, I am very skeptical about the promises of so-called cold fusion. If this were based on real science, scientists and corporations would be all over it. Unless physics has it all wrong (or I don't understand cold fusion), the amount of energy required to initiate fusion could not be produced chemically. "Cold" implies low energy, so I don't understand how any low-energy process could initiation nuclear fusion. If this were the case, wouldn't cold fusion be occurring naturally?
I agree! Unfortunately, there was no explicit mention of "growth" including population growth, the real basis of current and future problems. Hopefully, most of those who view this animated cartoon would understand that serious future problems will be almost impossible to solve without a decline in human population. This decline will occur one way or another. Choosing to reduce our population by limiting the number of children born to 1 per couple would certainly be far less dire than a decline due to disease, famine, war, etc. which are inevitable with continued population growth. It's too bad that people don't seem to understand that having more than 2 children per couple is adding to the serious problems that their children will face. The desire to have more than 1 child seems rather selfish considering that the children will be faced with greater problems than their parents.
I believe this will happen for a very good reason, although this may not be the most desirable thing to think about, depending on your point of view.I'm scared guys.
A nice introductory video ... even if with a clearly negative bias.
We'll see.it is a matter of too little too late.
I don't see that changing anything.India and China are putting cars on the road at an amazing rate, and are buying up much of the copper and other materials required to modernize their infrastructure.
And it is still used were it is the cost effective option.Have you bought some copper wire lately? Price has nearly doubled in the last 2 years.
The growth rate of the entire human global population is slowing.Population in some countries is level and declining, but the world population is anything but declining, and all of them will need food and energy.
100% agree.Growth is not sustainable in a fixed size earth.and we don't have any more worlds nearby that we can move to.
I would characterize it as a "realistic" bias.A nice introductory video ... even if with a clearly negative bias.
My complaint was that explicit mention of population growth was missing from the video. I watched it again and still found no explicit mention of population growth being a problem. The video did mention that economies are growing at 3% per annum on average which can't be sustained. Population and standard of living growth both drive economic growth, so even when (if?) the population stabilizes, billions will be demanding a higher standard of living which cannot be provided. So I think that a forced decline in population and standard of living will occur which won't make people happy.Human Population growth rates have already begun to peak as well in many places ... for a variety of factors ... not only is this ignored in the video ... but they try to suggest the opposite of what is actually happening
These efficiencies will be swamped by the developing world's billions who cannot afford the technologies responsible for these efficiencies.Despite population growth of raw people numbers in the U.S. the average energy use per person has been nearly level ... efficiencies of energy use are increasing as fast as population growth
Until some significant RE technology is capable of providing variable base loads or until electricity storage technologies support the economical storage of large amounts of electrical energy, RE technology cannot replace fossil fuel and nuclear electrical generation, can it?As fossil fuels become more expensive they make alternatives more cost effective... every $0.01 increase in oil increases the cost effectiveness of oil alternatives... so while the video showed the increasing oil trend it ignored the decreasing RE costs ( see attached bellow ) ... and the logic of the connection between them... It further ignored our current disproportionally larger incentives currently paid to Fossil Fuels over RE
What you categorize as "agricultural food production improvements", others would categorize as unsustainable food production techniques. The increased use of petrochemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides has improved food production tremendously while creating huge problems. The "green revolution" is being reversed in many locations because of these problems. Genetic engineering of food crops is certainly fraught with the possibilities of serious unintended consequences. Continued conversion of forests to agricultural fields and desertification of former agricultural areas isn't sustainable.The video looked at the negative side of food for a growing population ... but it ignored the current positive data trend ... In the U.S. despite the increased population of about ~35% from 1982 to 2007 , due to improved agricultural techniques we have been able to feed those increased number of people with less farm land planted ... see attached ... our growth rate has been slower than our agricultural food production improvements.
It was a little subtle ... it was the bacteria in a bottle example ... then they do a visual parallel with a lack of multiple earths.My complaint was that explicit mention of population growth was missing from the video. I watched it again and still found no explicit mention of population growth being a problem.
That's the back side of the bell curve.The video did mention that economies are growing at 3% per annum on average which can't be sustained. Population and standard of living growth both drive economic growth, so even when (if?) the population stabilizes, billions will be demanding a higher standard of living which cannot be provided. So I think that a forced decline in population and standard of living will occur which won't make people happy.
Maybe ... I'd say the standard of living for those in the U.S. has increased significantly ... while the energy consumption for that standard of living has not.I'd love to hear knowledgeable non-idealistic economists discuss how economies must change to become sustainable. Maybe this isn't possible without unpopular standard of living declines (cf., Greece).
They also won't be able to afford the energy spending devices either ... central Air Conditioning ... Hummers ... modern medical care ... etc.These efficiencies will be swamped by the developing world's billions who cannot afford the technologies responsible for these efficiencies.
Of course it can as it is already... what we can do and what we already have built are different things.Until some significant RE technology is capable of providing variable base loads or until electricity storage technologies support the economical storage of large amounts of electrical energy, RE technology cannot replace fossil fuel and nuclear electrical generation, can it?
Possible ... but even if that is the case ... that would be a reverse bell curve ... and eventually the reducing use of land would reverse and we would start a trend in the other direction with more land year after year after year ... we haven't reached that yet ... and even if we do ... we have lots of land we could expand / plant into.What you categorize as "agricultural food production improvements", others would categorize as unsustainable food production techniques.
Supply and DemandThe inefficient conversion of soil nutrients to animal protein is not sustainable, so meat production has to be replaced by vegetable production. But the billions in developing countries are demanding more animal protein, not less.
As the price goes up the % of people who can afford it goes down ... eventually resulting in a net decrease in consumption... not everyone can afford to drive $500,000 cars, or $5 Million dollar homes, etc... even if they want to.The current free market craze, especially in the U.S., has done little to reverse the trend toward the total collapse of fish populations in the oceans. The free market solution would be to fish wild fish until it's unaffordable and then resort to fish farming which is causing tremendous problems. But there always seem to be enough wealthy people to pay the ever-increasing prices of wild seafood, so as has happened to several fish species, the free market is unlikely to prevent a total collapse of all fisheries eventually.
I look at the data I have ... those trends might change ... but that is not the data... until it is.Too much optimism that technological solutions will solve so many serious problems can result in inaction to delay the worst of the problems ahead. Too much faith that the free market will take care of everything, the rejection of science (e.g., human-caused climate change), and the belief that some god will take care of us make me very pessimistic about the future of the human species. The Earth will survive regardless, and some species that we won't have taken down with us will survive. Fortunately, I have no children and will die before things get really bad.
Well while you wait, there's always the Mr. Gassification mod which is closer to what Doc Brown had anyway:I for one will be leaving a space in the rear hatch area of my Insight for my Mr Fusion machine.