The Energy Bank Account

[Nitack]

I am an ardent environmentalist. I believe that we need to do something about global warming. I believe that we need to find new technologies that will allow us to harness renewable resources. I believe that the general population has no clue about the reality of supplying our world with energy.

 

Right now we rely mostly on fossil fuels. What most people don't seem to realize is that those fossil fuels are basically a bank account of energy that the world has built up over a couple billion years. The coal and gasoline we burn today was the product of a life form a few million years ago. That life form was drawing its energy from the sun. I don't have figures on it, but I suspect we use up energy in one year that required a thousands years of energy from the sun to produce. We spend our energy bank account faster than we replenish it.

 

The buzzword of the day is "renewables". Everyone says we need renewable energy. But can we actually supply enough renewable energy to account for all of our needs? The problem is that even if we increased our renewable portfolio by a factor of ten, we would still be dipping into that energy bank account every day and drawing out more than gets put back in. In order for humans to not eventually face a energy crisis, we need to get all of our energy from renewable sources.

 

Here is the problem. Renewable energy has it's limits. Even if solar gets exponentially more efficient, and biomass becomes the true fuel for transportation, the planet can only sustain a certain amount of people. Our population continues to grow at an amazing rate. As more and more countries become industrialized they all want the same standard of living that you see in western culture. It would take 8 planets to support our population if everyone used energy like Americans do. It is just not possible, even if we advanced renewable energy by leaps and bounds. Population control needs to be part of a global agenda if we are to actually avoid catastrophic energy wars in the future. Picture this: Countries invade their less powerful neighbors, not to take their oil, coal, or even their forests, but to put up solar panels on their land to power their nation. :hyper:

 

Eventually, we need our entire energy needs to be based on renewable power, but we also need to control our population or even all the energy shed by the sun onto our rock will not be enough.

[Moontanman]

What we really need is population control, clean safe nuclear power, and to exploit the resources of the solar system instead of raping the Earth. Without these things it's just matter of time before the Earth is to far gone to recover and the the human race is dead or so far gone we are not really human or civilized anymore.

[Nitack]

What we really need is population control, clean safe nuclear power, and to exploit the resources of the solar system instead of raping the Earth. Without these things it's just matter of time before the Earth is to far gone to recover and the the human race is dead or so far gone we are not really human or civilized anymore.

 

Is nuclear power unlimited? Can we use up all readily available nuclear material for power production? I ask partially because I do not know and partially because I can easily envision a time where instead of strip mining coal we are strip mining uranium and plutonium. I understand the refining process, but we still need to find and remove the raw material. I am not against nuclear, I understand it is safe and clean, but it is not the end result. The sun will be around far longer than the human race (at this rate) so for our purposes it is a limitless supply of energy.

 

Population control is absolutely a key component to a sustainable future. However, what is the method to create population control? After all, one of the main criticisms of China is their one child system and how that infringes on the right of individuals to reproduce. Is it OK to suspend some inalienable rights? Who would enforce it. If we instituted a population control mechanism, when does it kick in? At what concentration is your population considered adequate? Do we develop an energy allotment per country and let them figure out their own population limits? A lot of questions that have easy answers in an authoritarian state (China) but no real answers in a democratic republic (US and most of Europe).

[Moontanman]

Is nuclear power unlimited? Can we use up all readily available nuclear material for power production? I ask partially because I do not know and partially because I can easily envision a time where instead of strip mining coal we are strip mining uranium and plutonium. I understand the refining process, but we still need to find and remove the raw material. I am not against nuclear, I understand it is safe and clean, but it is not the end result. The sun will be around far longer than the human race (at this rate) so for our purposes it is a limitless supply of energy.

 

Yes, compared to Oil and other forms of carbon based energy nuclear is unlimited. The most advanced forms of fission will actually use what now call waste as fuel and leave behind an order of magnitude less waste that has a far shorter half life. Even further along is the use of thorium as fuel, thorium and it's daughter products cannot be used to make nuclear bombs. Further along still is fusion which the real gold standard is aneutronic fusion using helium three. aneutronic fusion doesn't leave any radioactive waste products at all and the resulting power can be turned into electricity without a heat engine/boiler. Helium three doesn't exist on the earth in any real quantities but on the moon it is quite common in the regolith. A load of helium three that could fit in the space shuttle would provide enough energy for the USA for one year. Literally millions of years worth of helium three exist on the moon in it's regolith. The nuclear power we are using now is the equivalent of 1950's technology. We can and must do better than that.

 

 

Population control is absolutely a key component to a sustainable future. However, what is the method to create population control? After all, one of the main criticisms of China is their one child system and how that infringes on the right of individuals to reproduce. Is it OK to suspend some inalienable rights? Who would enforce it. If we instituted a population control mechanism, when does it kick in? At what concentration is your population considered adequate? Do we develop an energy allotment per country and let them figure out their own population limits? A lot of questions that have easy answers in an authoritarian state (China) but no real answers in a democratic republic (US and most of Europe).

 

No one has inalienable rights to over populate the earth. Bringing about a better standard of living through easy access to clean energy will have the effect of cutting down the birth rate but if it has to be voluntary then we need to start now educating people that the religious Idea of be fruitful and multiply on the earth is not the way to go. At some point if we cannot bring ourselves to enforce this idea then we need to move off planet in habitats orbiting around the sun were the resources and energy is available to the people who are civilized enough to live their lives as humans instead of animals trying to multiply to the limits of the environment.

[Nitack]

Yes, compared to Oil and other forms of carbon based energy nuclear is unlimited. The most advanced forms of fission will actually use what now call waste as fuel and leave behind an order of magnitude less waste that has a far shorter half life. Even further along is the use of thorium as fuel, thorium and it's daughter products cannot be used to make nuclear bombs. Further along still is fusion which the real gold standard is aneutronic fusion using helium three. aneutronic fusion doesn't leave any radioactive waste products at all and the resulting power can be turned into electricity without a heat engine/boiler. Helium three doesn't exist on the earth in any real quantities but on the moon it is quite common in the regolith. A load of helium three that could fit in the space shuttle would provide enough energy for the USA for one year. Literally millions of years worth of helium three exist on the moon in it's regolith. The nuclear power we are using now is the equivalent of 1950's technology. We can and must do better than that.

 

I have learned a hell of a lot from you in one post right here. You have my thanks. :naughty:

 

No one has inalienable rights to over populate the earth. Bringing about a better standard of living through easy access to clean energy will have the effect of cutting down the birth rate but if it has to be voluntary then we need to start now educating people that the religious Idea of be fruitful and multiply on the earth is not the way to go.

 

To overpopulate no, but overpopulation is a macro concept that can only be applied to a species as a whole. Every individual organism has the inalienable right to try to pass on its genetic material to the next generation. It is the evolutionary drive present in all organisms. This is not quite as easy of an issues as it appears at first. The evolutionary imperative is for each individual organism to try to pass on its genetic material as often and as successfully as possible. Although I believe that population controls are needed, you are messing with a dangerous concept here. You would be trying to regulate just how much of a right some one can have.

 

One child per couple would cut our population in half eventually. But what about children with different spouses? Each child is a unique creation of that coupling, does each coupling have a right to that one child? What about two children per couple, that would stabilize the world. How do you regulate countries with lower population concentrations vs countries of profound overpopulation like China or India? Do the countries with a lower concentration have the right to reach the same levels of concentration first? Human capitol can be more effective than natural resources if used right, look at Japan.

 

Large families are not solely a religious idea. Coming from a Catholic family (I am atheist) I know all too well how religion pushes people to multiply. Parents often indoctrinate their children so the religion grows exponentially every year if they push the gospel of procreation. However, in China their population boom had less to do with religion and much more to do with the cultural standard of the younger generation supporting their parents. Large families meant a better retirement. It was also beneficial for rural families that relied on large families to do more work.

 

 

At some point if we cannot bring ourselves to enforce this idea then we need to move off planet in habitats orbiting around the sun were the resources and energy is available to the people who are civilized enough to live their lives as humans instead of animals trying to multiply to the limits of the environment.

 

How do we enforce it? :hihi: Economic penalties like in china? Forced sterilization? Do we set up some kind of formula of what is an acceptable population concentration?

 

Your last line... point of fact, we are animals. We are instinctively programed to multiply as much as possible. It just happens that we reached a point about three thousand years ago where our ability to technologically adapt out our environment began to drastically outpace the limiting factors on population. Farming allowed us to feed more people using less land. Medicine allowed us to recover from most ailments.

[maikeru]

The buzzword of the day is "renewables". Everyone says we need renewable energy. But can we actually supply enough renewable energy to account for all of our needs? The problem is that even if we increased our renewable portfolio by a factor of ten, we would still be dipping into that energy bank account every day and drawing out more than gets put back in. In order for humans to not eventually face a energy crisis, we need to get all of our energy from renewable sources.

 

Actually, I suspect we can, but it will take a set of initiatives and strategies that rely on some assumptions, IMO:

 

1. We must reduce our energy needs and waste.

 

2. We must use clean, cheap, nondestructive, and accountable renewable energies.

 

3. We must be willing to change our mindsets and use as many or all renewable energy sources that make sense and are economically and environmentally viable: take "waste" and turn it into "resources" and "energy.". Not all "waste" is truly waste when it can be used for energy production, fertilizer, recycled, building materials, etc. "Waste" can be turned into "resources" if we're willing to work at it. E.g., used coffee grounds going into a landfill, cattle manure sitting in cesspools, corn stalks and husks after harvest, or wood and paper materials left unrecycled which are usually buried in landfills.

 

4. We must change our habits, our diets, our products, our spending, and our way of life so that renewables are the best options.

 

5. Businesses, industries, and homes must be willing and primed to use renewables that meet the above requirements.

 

Regarding point 1, there is little point to finding or producing more renewable energy if ever-expanding populations waste it, and people have an extraordinary capacity for waste. There is no limit to the amount of energy and resources people can waste, until they run out of one or the other. No matter how much good is gained from switching to renewables, efficiency can be destroyed by gross inefficiency, and the problems inherent or surrounding every kind of renewable energy will get worse if we must expand operations beyond real and sustainable needs. Every kind of renewable has its problems and challenges.

 

Regarding point 2, note that I mention four criteria: "clean, cheap, nondestructive, and accountable" in what renewables should do. Clean so that they do not impact the environment or human health. Degradation of the environment and human health is not acceptable, increases costs, destroys lives, destroys beauty, and destroys almost everything that we hold dear. There's no point to work harder to increase the quality of life if there's no quality of life to be had. Cheap so that economies, wages, and people's quality of life and livelihoods are not impacted. Witness the high oil prices that are crippling the US and world economy right now. Cheap energy helps to keep an economy's wheels turning. Nondestructive--take a look at the hills and mountains of West Virginia, the radioactive slag and waste buried by Energy Solutions in the western desert of Utah, or the devastation of the Amazon. The land, air, water, and beauty of these places is destroyed...sometimes forever. Accountable so that we do not make great gains in one area only to incur losses in another. E.g., corn ethanol, soy biodiesel, and other biofuel crops which require more resources to produce them for energy than can be extracted, and ultimately contribute to global warming and higher food prices.

 

Here is the problem. Renewable energy has it's limits. Even if solar gets exponentially more efficient, and biomass becomes the true fuel for transportation, the planet can only sustain a certain amount of people. Our population continues to grow at an amazing rate. As more and more countries become industrialized they all want the same standard of living that you see in western culture. It would take 8 planets to support our population if everyone used energy like Americans do. It is just not possible, even if we advanced renewable energy by leaps and bounds. Population control needs to be part of a global agenda if we are to actually avoid catastrophic energy wars in the future. Picture this: Countries invade their less powerful neighbors, not to take their oil, coal, or even their forests, but to put up solar panels on their land to power their nation. :naughty:

 

Definitely. If we have 10-12 billion people in the world, despite great advances in renewables, I have a really hard time trying to figure out how we'll grow enough food, have enough clean water, air, land, or anything for so many people. While it is everyone's right to try to produce children, it is perhaps not everyone's right to have 10-20 children. (You may laugh, but in Utah, where I live, it's common. Many of my friends have 5-10 siblings. There are polygamists who live in the extreme west and south of the state, who have dozens of children per man. Religious influence here. Unfortunately, this area cannot sustain such fast population growth, and already we're suffering from air and water pollution, and overblown real estate prices.)

 

I suspect there need to be more revolutions and changes in agriculture, even right now to support the population we have. Earth is overpopulated, and the environment and people are suffering for it. Ocean dead zones, global warming, destroyed or feeble fish stocks, devastated forests, and increasing deserts...we have a lot on our plate to deal with already. Imagine the world teeming with double our number.

[Moontanman]

I have learned a hell of a lot from you in one post right here. You have my thanks. :naughty:

 

 

Nitack, I feel I would be remiss if I didn't point out that I am somewhat less than objective when it comes to nuclear power. There are other schools of thought, nuclear is a high intensity source of power. Very little fuel is required to make a huge amount of power. But if we don't use it wisely, safely, and efficiently it becomes no better than coal or oil. Even now coal power plants release far more radioactivity into the environment than nuclear power. Nuclear power allows us to concentrate our power into small areas and takes up far less room that any other power source. Nuclear power is reliable, day, night, rain shine, cold, hot, it's always there. Other power sources make lots of sense for low power applications where there is lots of space or other available reasons. Geothermal is probably the best of all power sources but it is only available in limited areas. Nuclear also has the ability to give the resources of space, possibly a combination of solar, wind, geothermal backed up by nuclear is the best choice. but as I said nuclear power as we now know it is not the answer in any context.

 

To overpopulate no, but overpopulation is a macro concept that can only be applied to a species as a whole. Every individual organism has the inalienable right to try to pass on its genetic material to the next generation. It is the evolutionary drive present in all organisms. This is not quite as easy of an issues as it appears at first. The evolutionary imperative is for each individual organism to try to pass on its genetic material as often and as successfully as possible. Although I believe that population controls are needed, you are messing with a dangerous concept here. You would be trying to regulate just how much of a right some one can have.

 

One child per couple would cut our population in half eventually. But what about children with different spouses? Each child is a unique creation of that coupling, does each coupling have a right to that one child? What about two children per couple, that would stabilize the world. How do you regulate countries with lower population concentrations vs countries of profound overpopulation like China or India? Do the countries with a lower concentration have the right to reach the same levels of concentration first? Human capitol can be more effective than natural resources if used right, look at Japan.

 

Large families are not solely a religious idea. Coming from a Catholic family (I am atheist) I know all too well how religion pushes people to multiply. Parents often indoctrinate their children so the religion grows exponentially every year if they push the gospel of procreation. However, in China their population boom had less to do with religion and much more to do with the cultural standard of the younger generation supporting their parents. Large families meant a better retirement. It was also beneficial for rural families that relied on large families to do more work.

 

 

 

 

How do we enforce it? :hihi: Economic penalties like in china? Forced sterilization? Do we set up some kind of formula of what is an acceptable population concentration?

 

Your last line... point of fact, we are animals. We are instinctively programed to multiply as much as possible. It just happens that we reached a point about three thousand years ago where our ability to technologically adapt out our environment began to drastically outpace the limiting factors on population. Farming allowed us to feed more people using less land. Medicine allowed us to recover from most ailments.

 

All of these things are very difficult to control and yes we are animals but that doesn't mean we cannot rise above our animal passions and do what is right for the human race instead of what is wanted by an individual. we rise above this in many ways already. Reproduction is another way we need to put the community above the individual. If indeed we fail to get enough people to rise above their animal instincts then we need to have an ace in the hole ready, space habitats will allow the human race and the animal and plant life humans want to outlive the earth. the Earth has a limited life span no matter what we do, we need to make other plans or die with the earth.

[Boerseun]

Problem #1: People can't zip it, and hide behind personal freedom to justify having reams of kids.

 

Solution: Accept the population crisis for the crisis that it is. Let couples have 1 - yes, ONE, and ONE ONLY child. Couples who loose a child whilst still at childbearing age, can have another child. If past childbearing age, they can ADOPT another child. Men to undergo a forced vasectomy after the birth of their first (and only) child. They won't have any say in the matter, because they have proven themselves incapable of handling the population crisis by themselves. One kid, then *snip*.

 

Proceed in this manner until the Earth's population have reduced to 1 billion. Then allow couples to have only two children, no more. Children who die for some reason won't bring the population down - they'll be replaced by the natural occurrence of twins and triplets. Imagine what a paradise the Earth will be if we can drop and maintain world population at a billion...

 

To hell with personal freedom. If it takes the Chinese model to solve the population crisis, so be it. Individuals have long shown themselves not to be trusted when it comes with personal responsibility.

[Nitack]

Problem #1: People can't zip it, and hide behind personal freedom to justify having reams of kids.

 

Solution: Accept the population crisis for the crisis that it is. Let couples have 1 - yes, ONE, and ONE ONLY child. Couples who loose a child whilst still at childbearing age, can have another child. If past childbearing age, they can ADOPT another child. Men to undergo a forced vasectomy after the birth of their first (and only) child. They won't have any say in the matter, because they have proven themselves incapable of handling the population crisis by themselves. One kid, then *snip*.

 

Proceed in this manner until the Earth's population have reduced to 1 billion. Then allow couples to have only two children, no more. Children who die for some reason won't bring the population down - they'll be replaced by the natural occurrence of twins and triplets. Imagine what a paradise the Earth will be if we can drop and maintain world population at a billion...

 

To hell with personal freedom. If it takes the Chinese model to solve the population crisis, so be it. Individuals have long shown themselves not to be trusted when it comes with personal responsibility.

 

I accept your model as a logical solution to the crisis we face. However, make no mistake, we are talking about limiting a biological right inherent to every living organism. Does this set a precedent that might perhaps used in more nefarious ways? We propose population controls like this in order to face a problem and come up with a solution that is good for the whole.

 

Could the argument be made that free speech should be limited in order to weed out malcontents, conspiracy theorist, religious zealots? After all, allowing free speech can be incredibly dangerous when people buy into what the latest nut is spouting off about. Waco Texas compound, the UFO cult in southern California, Charles Manson and his followers. I actually consider all of those events to be evolution in action. The mentally weak bought into that crap and ended up being culled out of the gene pool for it. However, others would say that we need to protect the mentally weak from those people. You limit one right and it is easier to limit the next one.

 

To bring that last example even closer to home. There was a time when scientists were persecuted for their discoveries :eek2:. What if a religious revival of massive proportions happened and all of a sudden it was outlawed to talk about things like evolution, physics, and the nature of the universe? Would you be willing to give up your right to explore and discuss science in order to allow the majority to protect their children from your blasphemous ideas? :thumbs_up

[Boerseun]

However, make no mistake, we are talking about limiting a biological right inherent to every living organism.

The "ability" to do something by no means make it an inalienable "right" to do so. I have a hand with a finger that can pull a trigger. Because I'm able to pick up a handgun and shoot my neighbour between the eyes, does not mean its a right that I have. There's not a whole world of difference between whipping out guns and shooting each other, and pumping out kids by the dozen into an already overcrowded world which can hardly afford the extra load - the end effect is about the same.

Could the argument be made that free speech should be limited in order to weed out malcontents, conspiracy theorist, religious zealots? ...What if a religious revival of massive proportions happened and all of a sudden it was outlawed to talk about things like evolution, physics, and the nature of the universe? Would you be willing to give up your right to explore and discuss science in order to allow the majority to protect their children from your blasphemous ideas? :thumbs_up

Strawman argument.

 

There is no comparison between agressively limiting birthrates China-style, and the limitation of free speech and/or scientific freedom. It is, after all, due to scientific exploration that we've come to the conclusion that we urgently need to limit our offspring.

 

If anybody can tell me why it would be a good idea for anybody on this planet to have more than two children (one per partner, two per couple to maintain stasis), please do so. And if we agree to the obvious fact that people are currently shagging like rabbits without giving a hoot for the global consequences of their actions, then it might become clear why I would support legislation towards that particular goal.

 

Have a kid, have a snip. And that's ONE kid, in case you were wondering.

[Nitack]

Strawman argument.

 

There is no comparison between agressively limiting birthrates China-style, and the limitation of free speech and/or scientific freedom. It is, after all, due to scientific exploration that we've come to the conclusion that we urgently need to limit our offspring.

 

I disagree that it is a strawman argument considering my example actually drew on historical fact. I am not building up some future boogy man, I am citing our history of doing the exact thing I used as an example.

 

I also believe this is an absolutely valid comparison. Both cases deal with what we consider to be natural rights. When you talk of imposing limits on any natural right the subject is the concept of a right in and of itself, not the specific right. If you can place limits on one right in the name of "the common good", you can place a limit on any other right in the name of "the common good". The ability to reproduce or to freely express ones opinions may not be related to each other, but when you are talking about them as rights they are.

[Nitack]

The "ability" to do something by no means make it an inalienable "right" to do so. I have a hand with a finger that can pull a trigger. Because I'm able to pick up a handgun and shoot my neighbour between the eyes, does not mean its a right that I have. There's not a whole world of difference between whipping out guns and shooting each other, and pumping out kids by the dozen into an already overcrowded world which can hardly afford the extra load - the end effect is about the same.

 

Strawman argument. :thumbs_up

[Boerseun]

Strawman argument. :thumbs_up

How, exactly, do you figure that?

[Nitack]

How, exactly, do you figure that?

 

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1]

I did not say that just because I can do something that it is a right. You misrepresented my argument to say that I espoused the ability to do something as constituting its status as an individual or human right.

[Boerseun]

In your last post, you say:

I did not say that just because I can do something that it is a right.

...when you were referring to your previous post, where you said the following:

However, make no mistake, we are talking about limiting a biological right inherent to every living organism.

How, can the fact that I can procreate, turn that into a right?

 

...and from there on you proceed to liken the "right" to procreate (which I don't agree with) to the "right to free speech" in a rather ill-fitting analogy.

 

There are no similarities between the two. It's an invalid argument, a strawman set up by you. And there are no similarities, because limiting freedom of speech or scientific research (or not) has no influence on the commons, whereas unbridled procreation fouls the commons. Whether you're allowed to speak your mind has no bearing on my life whatsoever, whether you can make twenty little mini-Nitacks does, however. And we're past the point where we can entertain ourselves with lackadaiscal philosophy regarding population growth. Humans will have sex. Sex is fun. Men just luv them boobies. End of story. If the future of Life on Earth depended on men being able to control their most base sexual urges, then God help us. We're beyond that point now. China saw the reality of it long ago, the rest of us are just waking up now.

[Nitack]

How, can the fact that I can procreate, turn that into a right?

Natural right

A natural right is the concept of a universal right inherent in the nature of living beings, one that is not contingent upon laws or beliefs.

 

...and from there on you proceed to liken the "right" to procreate (which I don't agree with) to the "right to free speech" in a rather ill-fitting analogy.

Was I comparing procreation to free speech? Or was I compairing the right to procreation to the right to free speech? I think you are confusing the two, and they are two distinctly different comparisons. Of course procreation is not akin to free speech; but two individual rights, and the limiting of one right is eminently relevant to the security of the other right.

 

There are no similarities between the two. It's an invalid argument, a strawman set up by you. And there are no similarities, because limiting freedom of speech or scientific research (or not) has no influence on the commons, whereas unbridled procreation fouls the commons. Whether you're allowed to speak your mind has no bearing on my life whatsoever, whether you can make twenty little mini-Nitacks does, however. And we're past the point where we can entertain ourselves with lackadaiscal philosophy regarding population growth.

I did not set up a strawman, but that determination is contingent on your seeing the difference in the two distinctly different arguments I outlined above. If I am guilty of any logical fallacy it would be the "slippery slope", however I did not say that it was inevitable, but possible.

 

If you honestly think that freedom of speech can not be just as dangerous as overpopulation then i think you need to bone up on your history. Freedom of speech has allowed the inspiration of some of the worst and potentially catastrophic moments in human history. People can be wipped into a murderous frenzy when inspired.

 

The Holocaust - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Salem witch trials - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rwandan Genocide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trail of Tears - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bosnian War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Great Leap Forward - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Japanese American internment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Should I continue?

 

China saw the reality of it long ago, the rest of us are just waking up now.

 

China saw a population they could not feed and the death of 17 to 50 million people during the great leap forward. It was not foresight, it was learned from experience.

[Kayra]

China did not act, they reacted. Driven by the necessity of the situation, they did about the only thing they could.

 

It will take EXACTLY the same circumstances (or even more dire) to make changes like those in any other part of the "Free" world. There is not an elected government that exists that would have the courage to make these decisions, nor have the successor that would continue it. Any expectation otherwise is IMHO but a flight of fancy.

 

As to the problems described here, I am completely convinced that as each one must come to the point where its impact is unavoidable (and only at that time) before we will seek and implement solutions for them.

 

I find it interesting that most people underestimate the ingenuity of the human race, as well as its selfishness.

 

Energy must be treated as a commodity. It will adjust itself and self-seek solutions when there is sufficient demand. As demand exceeds supply, the value goes up. As the value goes up, new opportunities become economically feasible. The issue will resolve itself.

 

In regards to food, the earth is capable of comfortably sustaining about 15 billion people at our (Canada and US) current level of living and we will not reach that for a long time (if ever) and it can do so with current technologies.

 

Most people graphing population use values from before 1995 and ignore the facts involving the drop in birth rates when our children do not die in droves. As we increase the standard of living there is a DIRECT correlation with a drop in reproduction, down to and going below 0%. The only reason the United States is still growing is because of immigration. The few countries that have issues are almost universally due to lack of available birth control and survivability of the children. Two things easily resolved.

 

Notions of forced sterility and abolition of basic rights are not only unpalatable and wholly unacceptable, but completely unenforceable without resorting to a global socialist government.

 

Right now, things to be concerned about would be terrorism, nuclear holocaust, asteroids, artificial intelligence, artificial life, designer viruses, super volcanoes, nanotechnology, or the next ice age. These are things that have a chance of affecting the future of our lifestyle or even our lives.