Are we rushing to a stone age?

[Bruce]

A mate of mine reckons we will arrive at a stone age during the lifetimes of many people now alive. He says that it will be caused by overpopulation and resource depletion, and that the scientists are trying to warn us but nobody is listening.

 

The only counter-argument I know is the "hoon driving defence" which is to say that we have been behaving like this for years with good results, therefore we can do it forever. " We are richer than our parents so our kids will be richer than us...etc"

 

But it's a big thing though to accept that we are rushing to our doom, so I would like to be talked out of thinking this will happen.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Bruce, please stop dwelling on this. Although resource depletion and overpopulation are eventually inevitable, the scenario would not be an instantaneous event. So we will see a ramping up of prices of commodities / resources over the years, which in turn will make alternatives more and more attractive (even if you don't vote Greens). But big changes are inevitable. Some will win and some will lose during the process. Eventually human population must reduce (again we can't predict the mechanism as there are a number of probabilities). We just don't know the time line, but there will be time for alert people to assess the situation as it develops and keep themselves out of trouble..

 

 

[Yenn]

We are seeing the results of overpopulation now. What do you think is the cause of all the refugee problem and famine in refugee affected areas.

 

 

[nomadpete]

All too true. However our lifestyles have not yet been greatly compromised.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

We are seeing the results of overpopulation now. What do you think is the cause of all the refugee problem and famine in refugee affected areas.

We could argue the causes till the cows come home, but one pretty convincing analysis of the Syrian Apocalypse is that it was largely caused by drought. Lots of young people left rural villages for the overcrowded cities and got caught up in anti-government demonstrations. Assad's brutal reaction spiralled the country into civil war.

 

Researchers Link Syrian Conflict to a Drought Made Worse by Climate Change

 

Is a Lack of Water to Blame for the Conflict in Syria? | Innovation | Smithsonian

 

 

[nomadpete]

My point is, that there are multitudes of possible doomsday scenarios. It is illogical to focus on only one or two of them. Even if one attempts to prioritize the most likely ones (and we seem to have basically three concurrent ones developing), we as individuals, cannot stop them from happening. But since it is likely that these doomsday scenarios will happen gradually over the years, the best we can do is adapt our lifestyles to accommodate the changes as they occur. And lobby the politicians. Each of these problems are in the arena of politics because they are global issues.

 

 

[Bruce]

Far from doing too much on the issue nomad, I feel guilty about not doing enough. Complaining on this forum is surely not enough.

 

This current bout was due to Paul Ehrlich's visit to Australia. He wrote the "Population Bomb" book in which he correctly predicted the invasion of Australia by boat people. This and other predictions are happening but slower than he thought.

 

There is nothing to be done I know, when you read the local paper it is all about how wonderful the growth is but how South Australia needs even more rapid population growth. My guess is that the rich people who own shopping malls and blocks of flats donate to the politicians to keep big numbers coming in. .

 

I feel powerless and worry about the fate of the grandchildren. Not since the trial of Galileo has there been such a difference between science and authority.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...Paul Ehrlich's visit to Australia. He wrote the "Population Bomb" book in which he correctly predicted the invasion of Australia by boat people. This and other predictions are happening but slower than he thought...

Don't be too hasty in that analysis, Bruce. In the broad sweep of history, the boat migrations of the last few decades are nothing compared to what is ahead. I suspect our leaders know this; no wonder they are so brutal in deterring the desperate.

 

I have long argued that Australia is bound to suffer massive influxes of refugees. War, climate change, poverty... there are many push factors, but we have been very successful in marketing our continent as a safe and prosperous destination. That big moat around our country won't be much impediment as millions are displaced from low-lying land in Asia and the Pacific. Given our nation's hypocrisy over climate action, the international community will expect -even insist- that Australia accommodates them.

 

 

[old man emu]

I'm just coming to the closing pages of a book which has discussed the five mass extinction events (almost 100% die-offs of plant and animal life) over geological time. In all of them, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were a component. Leaving aside CO2's green house effects on air temperature, its most damaging effects were on the pH balance of the oceans. More CO2 makes the oceans acidic. Higher acidity makes it hard for micro-organisms to make their protective shells, not only leaving CO2 to acidify the water, but reducing the abundance of these organisms which are the base components of the food chain.

 

One major effect is the killing off of coral which form reefs that provide a degree of protection of ocean shores from the destructive action of currents, tides and storm waves. It is the destruction of these reefs that will further reduce the available land humans need for habitation and cultivation of foodstuffs.

 

So while we continue to release sequestered Carbon by the use of fossil fuels, we are attacking climate and habitat. Humans are also causing problems by destroying huge swathes of oxygen producing-carbon sequestering forest. I think that in the Court of The Animals, humans would be guilty of crimes against Creation.

 

How can the anti-uranium lobby keep preventing us from using a much more efficient heat source to produce the electric power humans now demand on the basis of a few hundred tonnes of used material cannot be safely transported back to the holes in the ground we dug it from?

 

OME

 

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

I totally agree, OME, except I'm very skeptical about nuclear power: it's too tied up with weapons development. The waste products need to be securely stored way past the likely timespan of our civilisation.

 

Recent advances make renewable energy look quicker, cheaper and safer.

 

 

[old man emu]

I totally agree, OME, except I'm very skeptical about nuclear power: it's too tied up with weapons development. The waste products need to be securely stored way past the likely timespan of our civilisation.

That fear is the product of anti-nuclear propaganda. England has had nuclear powered electricity generation since the 1960s. In fact, I know of a nuclear power station that was built in the early 60s that has come to the end of its useful life and has be decommissioned:

 

Google Maps

 

World's last operating Magnox reactor closes

 

Despite the Magnox method ( Magnox - Wikipedia ) having been superseded, it still provided incident-free power generation between 1956 and 1971. The problem of dealing with spent fuel had been addressed Storage and Disposal Options for Radioactive Waste - World Nuclear Association

 

Australia has many suitable sites for the disposal and handling of nuclear waste, such as the Woodlawn Mine at Taralga, near Gouburn NSW, part of which is being used as a landfill site for Sydney's garbage.

 

Nuclear-powered electricity generation does not automatically lead to nuclear weapons grade radioactive component production. It is a simple decision to choose not to employ systems that can generate such components.

 

There are plenty of people who argue that the energy inputs required to utilise wind and water to produce electricity are greater than the energy these systems will eventually produce. I'm sure that engineers of various types can at least equalise the equation.

 

OME

 

 

[facthunter]

Nuclear is not CHEAP or very safe. The stuff hangs around for thousands of years and I microgram of plutonium will be fatal to you if it gets into your lungs. The best nuclear is the sun. It is there already and effectively provides power at no cost. and we are shielded from it's deadly radiation by the atmosphere.

 

Coal, gas, oil and nuclear ADD energy to the semi closed system. Sunlight adds no more than normal which is basically stable in equilibrium until we upset the show with the CO2 Methane greenhouse effect which acts as a blanket keeping radiated heat in. The oxides of coal etc do end up in the sea as carbonic and carbolic acids Sulphur as sulphuric acid which can be a lot stronger and reactive. ACID rain killing trees and other crops. Most crude oil has 4% sulphur. Fairly inert until you oxidise it. Try sniffing that and you will be dead, fast. Nev

 

 

[nomadpete]

Bruce, I share your 'disempowerment'. If I write to my local memberndchildren, the letter gets read by a junior, and basically binned. Unless one commits to taking a direct part in the whole twisted, corrupt political system, our input as individuals doesn't really count. Don't worry too much about our grandchildren. They will deal with the changes as they come, same as we do.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Bruce, I share your 'disempowerment'. If I write to my local memberndchildren, the letter gets read by a junior, and basically binned...

Happens. I've sent off a well-researched suggestion to my local council; heard nothing. On enquiry, eventually a child tells me they don't have any money. (So presumably my laboriously-prepared letter never got to those it was addressed to.) I suspect well-funded lobbyists fare a little better.

 

Best to bypass the underlings and go direct to your reps. Even then, no matter how good the idea, it'll be forgotten if you don't keep pushing.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

<snip> On enquiry, eventually a child tells me they don't have any money. <snip>

The whippasnapper forgot to add " from you good self" to the end of his/her (to be PC) response.

 

With progression in technology, "renewables" is the way to go. Unf, for all of us, it comes down to cost. Nuclear is not as expensive as most think (I worked in the UK and US nuclear generation industries as well as a couple of continental European countries as well (central --> Eastern). Nuclear needn't be as expensive as it is; it is slightly over-regulated to say the least; and some of that regulation arguably introduces complexity that has caused accidents. Unf, people in snr positions being people (i.e. greed-driven) would foresake safety and a viable method of genertion to save a few thousad $/£/Euros or whatever. When you consider, when I left the indutry in 2000, a sungle plant/unit outage in the UK cost £1m/day i lost revenue, to save a few minutes seems like a good saving, but always ends in tears.

 

Oh - and in response to the original question, we re pickig up the pace...

 

 

[spacesailor]

Why ho Why

 

Doesn't the federal government PAY for the solar panels, if house owner's and councils are willing to erect the solar system on their roofs.

 

Lots of employment for Transport,installer's and anyone that needs to jump onto this work.

 

A bit like the insulation fiasco a few years back, but with lessons learn't from there.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[old man emu]

Then you get businesses, like one which holds the head lease to an airport in Sydney, that refuse to let owners of buildings on the airport enter into agreements with a company that installs basically rents your rooftop space to install solar panels to feed solar generated electricity back into the grid. But I err. The company that holds the lease does everything it can to promote aviation on the property it leases.

 

 

[spacesailor]

OME

 

"which holds to head lease to an airport in Sydney,"?

 

the owner's of the building would get an asset for the cost of installation,increasing the buildings resale price!.

 

Or do you mean a company leasing a roof to put solar panels on?.

 

How would they show a profit on the installed panels?

 

spacesailor

 

 

[old man emu]

Apparently the company that wanted to lease the roof space to install solar panels must have made some deal with the electricity generator companies to sell the electricity so produced. I don't know the details. All they wanted was roof space to put the panels on. The organisation which holds the head lease refuses the submitted building approval application (which, by the way, the solar panel was going to pay for). The buildings identified for the project were, at the time, the legal property of the small businesses, which had erected them before the Federal Government leased the airport.

 

The refusal of the head-lease holder to approve the building development applications was just another nail in the coffins of small businesses trying to make a living supporting GA.

 

 

[spacesailor]

OK

 

I was thinking in terms of the many domestic houses in city's, were the greatest need is.

 

If needed the air-conditioner could self energize to regulate solar output.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[facthunter]

I refrained from installing air conditioning until I hade a 22 solar panel array. The sun shines on hot days and cancels out the drain from the air conditioners which are so efficient I've hardly noticed any increase in usage. My supplier has sent a resume of what the next price rises are and they are significant . Also the off peak rate is a lesser discount from full rate than previously. I will try to find out why that is. it's not happening for a few weeks. Nev

 

 

[spacesailor]

Nev

 

It's called profit

 

spacesailor

 

 

[facthunter]

We are paying for the criminal stupidity of selling off the infrastructure to Overseas Companies. We lose control and they charge what they can get away with. Nev

 

 

[spacesailor]

Can only blame the politicians for that, now they are doing us over with the Adani coal mine!

 

After wait & see the outcome!.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[old man emu]

I agree that every house should have solar panels and a means of storing the energy for use at night.

 

If every house that is being built in the southwest Sydney Metropolitan area (down towards Camden) was fitted with a domestic-sized solar array, I reckon it would supply enough electricity so we could shut down half the coal fired generators that are needed for the industrial demand. Can you imagine the amount of solar generation that could be obtained from the hundreds of hectares of roof space in these new developments? It might give us some return for the environmental rape that these developments have committed.